Conversion from Theism to Atheism

[Asterdan]

Most people don't go from atheism then back to theism, in my experience.

Most being the key word. It does happen, though.

[Lydenburg]

Let me get this straight: you are crediting this life changing experience and period of spiritual crisis solely to a meaningless thread on a fringe forum for an online nation simulator game.

Let me get this straight: christianity is based solely on the many times rewritten and retranslated works of authors decades after an alleged event with absolutely no historical records, which was then cut in half and bulked back up a few hundred years later by committee, and people buy into it?

Who's talking about Christianity?

[Imperial Esplanade]

Leave it to you to try and nitpick.

That's like calling the nile a trickle.

Why is it that you believe death is truly the end, and not just a passing phase? Our Universe did have a beginning, after all, meaning it is quite likely there was a creator - why couldn't that creator be God?

Why is it that you think your life, or the lives of others, is and are meaningless respectively? For crying out loud, you have the opportunity to build your own little world, you have the unparalleled opportunity to use your intellect and freewill in a way nobody else ever had. Who else can say that they're you? Who else can say they have your gifts, your talents, your experiences, and your thoughts... all given to you to make this world a better place? Look, I live with severe chronic depression, so if there's anyone who could say life is meaningless, painful, and full of suffering... I'd be me. Yet, we have the ability to choose right from wrong, that's what freewill is, and with that freedom comes occasional bad choices.

Why is it that this little wet rock, seemingly in the middle of nowhere, of any importance or relevance? Every single planet in the Universe is in this very same empty, unparalleled vastness of space. What's more to think of is this... why in the unparallelled vastness of space are you here, on Earth, among us? Is there a reason?

Do you not think that maybe, just maybe, those very same prayers might be heard by a God who very subtlety answered via inspirations to those very same biologists, chemists, and physicists and even more? Do you really truly believe that if there is a God, that we'd be seen as slaves instead of beloved children?

Existential questions are hardly soft questions, and I'm willing to bet you don't have the answers to them regardless of your opinion of them.

[Sociobiology]

I appear to be going through a period of heavy religious doubt, since I partook in a thread about criminal systems. For some reason, I ended up contradicting myself, eventually reasoning that nothing exists, and then I just sort of lost it from there.

Let me get this straight: you are crediting this life changing experience and period of spiritual crisis solely to a meaningless thread on a fringe forum for an online nation simulator game.

You'd be surprised how much being able to go back and read your own words, later after the emotions have cleared, effects your awareness of your own thought process.
Its a technique the encourage for education now.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I was raised catholic, baptized days after birth, went to church every Sunday, etc. From my earliest memories, I sort of recall being religious.

The thing was, I didn't practice the christian faith out of any love for their God or their Jesus, I did it because I was very plainly afraid. I feared that if I strayed from the path, I'd end up being tortured for all eternity in hell. It was sort of a period of confusion and paranoia, and I wasn't terribly happy as a result. The issue only became worse when I began to realize I wasn't a heterosexual.

Eventually I just sort of woke up one day and realized that I didn't honestly believe in a god. I figured it was all superstitious nonsense.

That was age nine, and I can't say I've regretted de-conversion since.

I very much wish there was a loving god, and I very much wish there was an afterlife where bad people got a bad fate and good people got a good fate. But I don't, and I can't really delude myself into doing so.

Well to be fair, it seems like your childhood experience with faith had a lot to do with bad Christians more so than a perceived bad God or even that it's a heap of mythology. Sorry to hear that, though it's good you're still somewhat open to it.

"Bad". They were honest christians, your christian god is just very unpleasant.

And no, I'm not open to it. I also wish leprechauns were real, but I very much acknowledge that they are not.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

That's like calling the nile a trickle.

1. Why is it that you believe death is truly the end, and not just a passing phase? Our Universe did have a beginning, after all, meaning it is quite likely there was a creator - why couldn't that creator be God?

2. Why is it that you think your life, or the lives of others, is and are meaningless respectively? For crying out loud, you have the opportunity to build your own little world, you have the unparalleled opportunity to use your intellect and freewill in a way nobody else ever had. Who else can say that they're you? Who else can say they have your gifts, your talents, your experiences, and your thoughts... all given to you to make this world a better place? Look, I live with severe chronic depression, so if there's anyone who could say life is meaningless, painful, and full of suffering... I'd be me. Yet, we have the ability to choose right from wrong, that's what freewill is, and with that freedom comes occasional bad choices.

3. Why is it that this little wet rock, seemingly in the middle of nowhere, of any importance or relevance? Every single planet in the Universe is in this very same empty, unparalleled vastness of space. What's more to think of is this... why in the unparallelled vastness of space are you here, on Earth, among us? Is there a reason?

4. Do you not think that maybe, just maybe, those very same prayers might be heard by a God who very subtlety answered via inspirations to those very same biologists, chemists, and physicists and even more? Do you really think that if there is a God, that we'd be seen as slaves instead of beloved children?

5. Existential questions are hardly soft questions, and I'm willing to bet you don't have the answers to them regardless of your opinion of them.

1. I have no reason to believe otherwise, and I do not belief without good reason.
Cosmological argument - relies on special pleading, argument from ignorance, and equivocation. Garbage argument, try something that wasn't old when charlemagne heard it.

2. Depending on your definition, logic and using those definitions, or empirical evidence. To demonstrate that there is an extrinsic meaning, you have to demonstrate something like god. From our interactions in other threads, I know you can't get anywhere close to that.

Making the world a better place with reason was the point of most of my actually challenging questions. Reason has done more than faith for everyone alive, even if that isn't much for a lot of the world. But believing that you are in a unique position to do so is arrogance. Thinking that you have a special purpose is ignorance. And I want you to tell me what the special purpose of anencephalic infants are, because I don't think you understand where you're coming from.

3. Anthropocentrism. It's a normal human bias to assign great import to the self, when there is in fact nothing important about you on a greater scale.

4. I did when I was 7. Then I realized how cowardly, irrational, and foolish that was. It also conflicts with #2, where you assign free will and capacity for works to humans. You can't have both.
I've seen three infants in one coffin, because the hospital can't afford to build enough of them, in the nave of a church as three families wept. Do you think that a loving parent would do that to their children?

5. Yours certainly are, especially since they rely on fallacy. It's not my opinion that they're bad, it is a fact that they are bad.

[Reverend Norv]

Here's my perspective. It is the perspective of a single Protestant. It is not normative. I speak for no church, and still less for God. But for what it's worth, I will offer it.

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul writes that God "hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

In the same epistle, Paul writes that "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

So faith, then, is not something that we do. It is not an action, or an achievement. We cannot possess it. Rather, it is something that we are given - something that was planned for us from the foundation of the world.

So my first conclusion would be this: if you have lost your faith, then it is not your own fault. It is not through some lack of trying on your part. It is not a failure. If we believe, then it is by God's will. If we do not, then it is also by God's will.

As the psalmist says, "The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works." God does not make mistakes. If you do not believe, then you were meant not to believe, and it is good and holy that you do not.

There is one other important point, related to this but distinct from it. The God in whom you no longer believe has not ceased to love you. You are, of course, a sinner - but so am I. None of us is perfect. But you are not damned. You are not condemned. You are cherished.

I know this because when Christ died on the cross, he did not offer up his life for those who loved him. He died for those who didn't. "While we were yet sinners," Paul says, "Christ died for us." Love, says John, lies not in the fact "that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." God loved us before we loved Him. He goes on loving us even when we hate Him.

And Jesus himself said that God "maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

God's love is perfect. It is not tribal. It is not limited. It is not conditional. It does not begin when you receive the gift of faith. It does not end when your faith departs from you again. It is older than the foundations of the Earth, higher than the vault of the heavens, more unchanging than the bones of the mountains. It is in the ground you walk on, the air you breathe, the smile of everyone who has ever loved you, the warmth of the sun with each new morning. God loved you before you were born, and God will go on loving you long after you are dead - no matter how many times you lose your faith, or how many times you find it again.

So ask your questions. Struggle with your doubts. Like Jacob, wrestle with the angel all through the night. Maybe faith will find you again. Maybe it won't. Either way, whatever happens within your soul is sacred. But never, ever forget: all through that long dark night of doubt, no matter what dawn breaks at the end of it, God's love abides. You may not see it. You may not hear it. You may not believe it. But you will never have to face this world alone.

That's my two cents. Do with it as you will, no more and no less. I wish you nothing but joy.

[Sebtopiaris]

Alternatively; have you ever considered exploring new religious ideas? There isn't just Christianity and Atheism, unlike what many people think.

You know, when it's so new you know the guy who made it up and got people to believe it in your lifetime or the lifetime of one of your family members, most reasonable people can see it's bullshit.
EDIT: Except for the flying spaghetti monster. He's infallible.

[Godular]

Alternatively; have you ever considered exploring new religious ideas? There isn't just Christianity and Atheism, unlike what many people think.

You know, when it's so new you know the guy who made it up and got people to believe it in your lifetime or the lifetime of one of your family members, most reasonable people can see it's bullshit.
EDIT: Except for the flying spaghetti monster. He's infallible.

Ramen, brother.

[Sebtopiaris]

You know, when it's so new you know the guy who made it up and got people to believe it in your lifetime or the lifetime of one of your family members, most reasonable people can see it's bullshit.
EDIT: Except for the flying spaghetti monster. He's infallible.

Ramen, brother.

Indeed.

[Imperial Esplanade]

1. Why is it that you believe death is truly the end, and not just a passing phase? Our Universe did have a beginning, after all, meaning it is quite likely there was a creator - why couldn't that creator be God?

2. Why is it that you think your life, or the lives of others, is and are meaningless respectively? For crying out loud, you have the opportunity to build your own little world, you have the unparalleled opportunity to use your intellect and freewill in a way nobody else ever had. Who else can say that they're you? Who else can say they have your gifts, your talents, your experiences, and your thoughts... all given to you to make this world a better place? Look, I live with severe chronic depression, so if there's anyone who could say life is meaningless, painful, and full of suffering... I'd be me. Yet, we have the ability to choose right from wrong, that's what freewill is, and with that freedom comes occasional bad choices.

3. Why is it that this little wet rock, seemingly in the middle of nowhere, of any importance or relevance? Every single planet in the Universe is in this very same empty, unparalleled vastness of space. What's more to think of is this... why in the unparallelled vastness of space are you here, on Earth, among us? Is there a reason?

4. Do you not think that maybe, just maybe, those very same prayers might be heard by a God who very subtlety answered via inspirations to those very same biologists, chemists, and physicists and even more? Do you really think that if there is a God, that we'd be seen as slaves instead of beloved children?

5. Existential questions are hardly soft questions, and I'm willing to bet you don't have the answers to them regardless of your opinion of them.

1. I have no reason to believe otherwise, and I do not belief without good reason.
Cosmological argument - relies on special pleading, argument from ignorance, and equivocation. Garbage argument, try something that wasn't old when charlemagne heard it.

2. Depending on your definition, logic and using those definitions, or empirical evidence. To demonstrate that there is an extrinsic meaning, you have to demonstrate something like god. From our interactions in other threads, I know you can't get anywhere close to that.

Making the world a better place with reason was the point of most of my actually challenging questions. Reason has done more than faith for everyone alive, even if that isn't much for a lot of the world. But believing that you are in a unique position to do so is arrogance. Thinking that you have a special purpose is ignorance. And I want you to tell me what the special purpose of anencephalic infants are, because I don't think you understand where you're coming from.

3. Anthropocentrism. It's a normal human bias to assign great import to the self, when there is in fact nothing important about you on a greater scale.

4. I did when I was 7. Then I realized how cowardly, irrational, and foolish that was. It also conflicts with #2, where you assign free will and capacity for works to humans. You can't have both.
I've seen three infants in one coffin, because the hospital can't afford to build enough of them, in the nave of a church as three families wept. Do you think that a loving parent would do that to their children?

5. Yours certainly are, especially since they rely on fallacy. It's not my opinion that they're bad, it is a fact that they are bad.

1.) How about a little bit of... Yea-no. You're throwing in a lot of big words at someone who has taken a few philosophy classes, meaning I understand each of them precisely and could take you to school on them if you'd like, but I can already tell by your usage of them you don't really know much about what you're saying here. Cosmological arguments are essentially abstract theories, and they always fly over the heads of those who are so heavily closed minded and ignorant to refuse to think about them, dismissing them outright unless they're all tied in a nice, neat little concrete mathematical/scientific bow for them. I know for a fact they do for you in our previous encounters, and this one only reinforces that fact. Is this to dismiss science and math? Absolutely not, but to suggest cosmological arguments are 'garbage arguments' goes to show just how little you actually know about them. Furthermore, no, they do not rely on special pleading - do you even know what special pleading is to begin with? Also, how exactly do all cosmological arguments rely on special pleading? Would love to hear what you have to say...

2.) Here's a little something for you to dwell on, not everything HAS to have an apparent intrinsic meaning for us to understand in order to exist. To dismiss anything as nonsense as a result would be selfishly naive and incredibly ignorant from both a species standpoint and an individualistic standpoint. We're mere humans, there will be things we cannot possibly begin to imagine or conceive... that doesn't mean those things cannot possibly exist since they're unimaginable or inconceivable. Ever been outside of the Universe? Could you answer what existed prior to the Universe? No? Then how could you possibly dismiss intrinsic meaning or even dismiss God altogether? Yes, these two concepts may be identifiable - but yet they're impossible to fully comprehend by mere human minds.

Yet, here is something that we both could agree on, irregardless of why we're here... we're here, and so let's put our gifts, talents, and experiences together in order to construct a better world. Oh, wait, could that be what God would want us to do, if he existed, with our free wills? Not to go about and enslave one another, kill one another, steal from one another, etc. etc.? Reason only goes as far as the human mind can take it, and the human mind has its' limits. If there was a God, wouldn't faith in it actually take us further than reason? I'm not just talking about the ignorant blind kind of faith, I'm talking about in situations where we've exhausted all human reason... wouldn't faith inherently be the source for truth where reason cannot take us? Furthermore, believing that someone is "better" BECAUSE they're in a unique position is, indeed, arrogance... but the thought that we might be unique in the grand scheme of things is actually not all that arrogant, if it is wielded with responsibility. If we truly are stewards of this planet, it's our responsibility to take care of it... and we're capable of doing a pretty bad job of it in case you haven't noticed... but we're also capable of doing a phenomenal job at it too.

Finally, even if I wanted to explain the purpose of anencephalic infants, I couldn't. I'm not God, I'm just like you.. a mere mortal human. Guess what though, neither can math or science. Purpose is not, and cannot, be mathematically or scientifically explained, only abstractedly pondered by the human mind. If there is a God, though, it'll know and have a very good reason. Don't be so caught up in the differing qualities of this temporary life, without considering the possible existence of an afterlife in which God truly understands the hearts, minds, and lives of every human being... and will weigh judgement upon them compassionately, but also fairly.

3.) Oh, but yet you don't quite understand the significance in that there is only one you, there has never been another you, and there will never be another you. Again, purpose cannot be so eloquently explained in a concrete manner... except upon living out your life to its' fullest extent. Either you'll recess into nothingness (whatever THAT is) or you'll know for certain what the significance of your life truly was upon standing God's judgement. So, if you want a reason to be here for the time being, here's a reason: you're here. You're here, and you have only one singular lifespan here... so, you might as well make the most of it.

4.) No, there's a difference between possible inspiration inspiration, and a sudden temporary divine takeover. You might feel inspired to do something, a fleeting suggestion from within, but that inspiration won't turn you into a robot. That's the entire point of free-will, that everything we do will be as a choice on our own accord and that God will not be controlling us as a puppeteer of sorts. That's why, from a cosmological and theological standpoint, there can be God as well as all the wicked evil in this world. Consider this: an act of love is all the more precious and notable when it is freely given as opposed to when it is directed, but for love to be freely given... there must be the existence of a free-will. Furthermore, you're asking a question that no mortal human could possibly answer... and as conceivably terrible as certain situations might seem, you're only considering the immediate realm of existence (since, well, it's the only one you understand) all the while dismissing any other realm of existence as false simply because you do not (or cannot) understand them. Again, just because YOU personally do not, or cannot, understand something doesn't mean it cannot be true or even cannot exist. Taking into account the assumed existence of God, there will be so many things that we just would not physically and mentally be capable of understanding.

5.) Funny thing is, I could say the very same things about what you had just posted yourself, but I'll refrain from doing so... why? There's hardly ever anything factual about opinion, nor is it usually mathematically or scientifically provable. Yet, you, the very person who brandishes as 'mathematically and scientifically facts only' type of approach seemingly all the time chooses to share an opinion anyway? Something which, by its' very nature, requires abstracted thought to a certain degree? Hmm, quite interesting.

[Wallenburg]

Here's my perspective. It is the perspective of a single Protestant. It is not normative. I speak for no church, and still less for God. But for what it's worth, I will offer it.

All right.

In the Epistle to the Ephesians

The Bible is not a source to prove God's existence by. In case you hadn't noticed, it's kind of biased.

the Apostle Paul writes that God "hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

In the same epistle, Paul writes that "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

This is what I like about biblical teachings: some of them actually promote good morals, such as don't be self-centered.

So faith, then, is not something that we do. It is not an action, or an achievement. We cannot possess it. Rather, it is something that we are given - something that was planned for us from the foundation of the world.

I thought you would do this. Again, the Bible is not a source. It is self-reinforcing and thus makes itself one large logical fallacy. Just because the Bible says that God gave us faith does not make it so, since we have yet to prove there is a God to give said faith.

So my first conclusion would be this: if you have lost your faith, then it is not your own fault. It is not through some lack of trying on your part. It is not a failure.

Here I agree with you. It is nobody's fault. Rather, it is the logical conclusion of anyone willing to wake up from the fairyland of religion.

If we believe, then it is by God's will. If we do not, then it is also by God's will.

Wouldn't he want everyone to believe in him if he existed?

As the psalmist says, "The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works." God does not make mistakes. If you do not believe, then you were meant not to believe, and it is good and holy that you do not.

Argument by assertion.

There is one other important point, related to this but distinct from it. The God in whom you no longer believe has not ceased to love you. You are, of course, a sinner - but so am I. None of us is perfect. But you are not damned. You are not condemned. You are cherished.

I am happy to see this, considering the fiery evangelism I have seen from others.

I know this because when Christ died on the cross, he did not offer up his life for those who loved him. He died for those who didn't. "While we were yet sinners," Paul says, "Christ died for us." Love, says John, lies not in the fact "that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." God loved us before we loved Him. He goes on loving us even when we hate Him.

Again, argument by assertion. And it just keeps going on...

Of course, if you are simply stating your opinion and don't intend to attempt to win back our newly athiest comrade, then I can understand your one-sided approach. Either way, your beliefs are your beliefs, and as long as you feel they make you happy then I hope you find peace in your faith.

[Godular]

1. I have no reason to believe otherwise, and I do not belief without good reason.
Cosmological argument - relies on special pleading, argument from ignorance, and equivocation. Garbage argument, try something that wasn't old when charlemagne heard it.

2. Depending on your definition, logic and using those definitions, or empirical evidence. To demonstrate that there is an extrinsic meaning, you have to demonstrate something like god. From our interactions in other threads, I know you can't get anywhere close to that.

Making the world a better place with reason was the point of most of my actually challenging questions. Reason has done more than faith for everyone alive, even if that isn't much for a lot of the world. But believing that you are in a unique position to do so is arrogance. Thinking that you have a special purpose is ignorance. And I want you to tell me what the special purpose of anencephalic infants are, because I don't think you understand where you're coming from.

3. Anthropocentrism. It's a normal human bias to assign great import to the self, when there is in fact nothing important about you on a greater scale.

4. I did when I was 7. Then I realized how cowardly, irrational, and foolish that was. It also conflicts with #2, where you assign free will and capacity for works to humans. You can't have both.
I've seen three infants in one coffin, because the hospital can't afford to build enough of them, in the nave of a church as three families wept. Do you think that a loving parent would do that to their children?

5. Yours certainly are, especially since they rely on fallacy. It's not my opinion that they're bad, it is a fact that they are bad.

1.) How about a little bit of... Yea-no. You're throwing in a lot of big words at someone who has taken a few philosophy classes, meaning I understand each of them precisely and could take you to school on them if you'd like, but I can already tell by your usage of them you don't really know much about what you're saying here. Cosmological arguments are essentially abstract theories, and they always fly over the heads of those who are so heavily closed minded and ignorant to refuse to think about them, dismissing them outright unless they're all tied in a nice, neat little concrete mathematical/scientific bow for them. I know for a fact they do for you in our previous encounters, and this one only reinforces that fact. Is this to dismiss science and math? Absolutely not, but to suggest cosmological arguments are 'garbage arguments' goes to show just how little you actually know about them. Furthermore, no, they do not rely on special pleading - do you even know what special pleading is to begin with? Also, how exactly do all cosmological arguments rely on special pleading? Would love to hear what you have to say...

Just because you can't rule it out doesn't mean you can automatically rule it IN.

2.) Here's a little something for you to dwell on, not everything HAS to have an apparent intrinsic meaning for us to understand in order to exist. To dismiss anything as nonsense as a result would be selfishly naive and incredibly ignorant from both a species standpoint and an individualistic standpoint. We're mere humans, there will be things we cannot possibly begin to imagine or conceive... that doesn't mean those things cannot possibly exist since they're unimaginable or inconceivable. Ever been outside of the Universe? Could you answer what existed prior to the Universe? No? Then how could you possibly dismiss intrinsic meaning or even dismiss God altogether? Yes, these two concepts may be identifiable - but yet they're impossible to fully comprehend by mere human minds.

Just because you can't rule it out doesn't mean you can automatically rule it IN.

Yet, here is something that we both could agree on, irregardless of why we're here... we're here, and so let's put our gifts, talents, and experiences together in order to construct a better world. Oh, wait, could that be what God would want us to do, if he existed, with our free wills? Not to go about and enslave one another, kill one another, steal from one another, etc. etc.? Reason only goes as far as the human mind can take it, and the human mind has its' limits. If there was a God, wouldn't faith in it actually take us further than reason? I'm not just talking about the ignorant blind kind of faith, I'm talking about in situations where we've exhausted all human reason... wouldn't faith inherently be the source for truth where reason cannot take us? Furthermore, believing that someone is "better" BECAUSE they're in a unique position is, indeed, arrogance... but the thought that we might be unique in the grand scheme of things is actually not all that arrogant, if it is wielded with responsibility. If we truly are stewards of this planet, it's our responsibility to take care of it... and we're capable of doing a pretty bad job of it in case you haven't noticed... but we're also capable of doing a phenomenal job at it too.

'Irregardless'... freaking grr.

Humility is not a bad thing. I look out among the stars and think how freakin' tiny I am, and that spurs me to try and make even the smallest ripple.

Finally, even if I wanted to explain the purpose of anencephalic infants, I couldn't. I'm not God, I'm just like you.. a mere mortal human. Guess what though, neither can math or science. Purpose is not, and cannot, be mathematically or scientifically explained, only abstractedly pondered by the human mind. If there is a God, though, it'll know and have a very good reason. Don't be so caught up in the differing qualities of this temporary life, without considering the possible existence of an afterlife in which God truly understands the hearts, minds, and lives of every human being... and will weigh judgement upon them compassionately, but also fairly.

Considered and discarded on the basis of lack of evidence. Putting cards into the basket I know exists. Asking 'why am I here' is just dwelling on a non-issue. You're here. Yay. There's a rose, take a moment and sniff.

i.e: Just because you can't rule it out does not automatically mean you can rule it IN.

3.) Oh, but yet you don't quite understand the significance in that there is only one you, there has never been another you, and there will never be another you. Again, purpose cannot be so eloquently explained in a concrete manner... except upon living out your life to its' fullest extent. Either you'll recess into nothingness (whatever THAT is) or you'll know for certain what the significance of your life truly was upon standing God's judgement. So, if you want a reason to be here for the time being, here's a reason: you're here. You're here, and you have only one singular lifespan here... so, you might as well make the most of it.

I don't aim to be a good person, living my life to its fullest extent, because somebody tells me to. I do it because I bloody well can. Saying it is 'gods will' is frankly insulting.

4.) No, there's a difference between possible inspiration inspiration, and a sudden temporary divine takeover. You might feel inspired to do something, a fleeting suggestion from within, but that inspiration won't turn you into a robot. That's the entire point of free-will, that everything we do will be as a choice on our own accord and that God will not be controlling us as a puppeteer of sorts. That's why, from a cosmological and theological standpoint, there can be God as well as all the wicked evil in this world. Consider this: an act of love is all the more precious and notable when it is freely given as opposed to when it is directed, but for love to be freely given... there must be the existence of a free-will. Furthermore, you're asking a question that no mortal human could possibly answer... and as conceivably terrible as certain situations might seem, you're only considering the immediate realm of existence (since, well, it's the only one you understand) all the while dismissing any other realm of existence as false simply because you do not (or cannot) understand them. Again, just because YOU personally do not, or cannot, understand something doesn't mean it cannot be true or even cannot exist. Taking into account the assumed existence of God, there will be so many things that we just would not physically and mentally be capable of understanding.

Just because you can't rule it out does not mean you can automatically rule it IN.

There is no proof that this God exists. Had nobody even mentioned this God thing in the first place, it would not even be on the table for discussion. There is no rational reason as to why we should give the very concept of god any more credence than your standard-issue imaginary friend.

5.) Funny thing is, I could say the very same things about what you had just posted yourself, but I'll refrain from doing so... why? There's hardly ever anything factual about opinion, nor is it usually mathematically or scientifically provable. Yet, you, the very person who brandishes as 'mathematically and scientifically facts only' type of approach seemingly all the time chooses to share an opinion anyway? Something which, by its' very nature, requires abstracted thought to a certain degree? Hmm, quite interesting.

Just because you can't rule it out does not mean you can automatically rule it IN.

The assertion of a God's existence does not even qualify as a hypothetical, as it needs to be possible to test the claim.

[Zakuvia]

I look at it from a cost/benefit analysis perspective myself. Most people who talk to me assume I'm an Atheist because I giggle at Creationists and am skeptical in just about everything. Noah's Ark didn't happen, Dawkin's adjectives were correct, etc. But the homicidal homophobe in the sky is NOT what I worship. I worship God more conceptually. Is it cherry picking? You betcha. But the way I see it forcing the idea of an evil God just because is silly. Honestly, as I see it, so long as I live a moral existence and work for the altruistic benefit of those around me, I will be rewarded for it.

Could the 'anti-God' equation that irrefutably proves the nonexistence of God sway me? Of course, I'm not a fundamentalist. That being said, I just know that we don't know the very beginning, nor do we know the very end. In those blind spots, I see the work of God, until proven guilty in a court of science.

[Godular]

I look at it from a cost/benefit analysis perspective myself. Most people who talk to me assume I'm an Atheist because I giggle at Creationists and am skeptical in just about everything. Noah's Ark didn't happen, Dawkin's adjectives were correct, etc. But the homicidal homophobe in the sky is NOT what I worship. I worship God more conceptually. Is it cherry picking? You betcha. But the way I see it forcing the idea of an evil God just because is silly. Honestly, as I see it, so long as I live a moral existence and work for the altruistic benefit of those around me, I will be rewarded for it.

Could the 'anti-God' equation that irrefutably proves the nonexistence of God sway me? Of course, I'm not a fundamentalist. That being said, I just know that we don't know the very beginning, nor do we know the very end. In those blind spots, I see the work of God, until proven guilty in a court of science.

Wow... prolly the most blatant 'God of the Gaps' I've ever seen.

[Zakuvia]

I look at it from a cost/benefit analysis perspective myself. Most people who talk to me assume I'm an Atheist because I giggle at Creationists and am skeptical in just about everything. Noah's Ark didn't happen, Dawkin's adjectives were correct, etc. But the homicidal homophobe in the sky is NOT what I worship. I worship God more conceptually. Is it cherry picking? You betcha. But the way I see it forcing the idea of an evil God just because is silly. Honestly, as I see it, so long as I live a moral existence and work for the altruistic benefit of those around me, I will be rewarded for it.

Could the 'anti-God' equation that irrefutably proves the nonexistence of God sway me? Of course, I'm not a fundamentalist. That being said, I just know that we don't know the very beginning, nor do we know the very end. In those blind spots, I see the work of God, until proven guilty in a court of science.

Wow... prolly the most blatant 'God of the Gaps' I've ever seen.

Unabashedly. Of course, who's to say that God has to be imminently apparent in every single aspect of our existences or else?

[Grave_n_idle]

I appear to be going through a period of heavy religious doubt, since I partook in a thread about criminal systems. For some reason, I ended up contradicting myself, eventually reasoning that nothing exists, and then I just sort of lost it from there.

Point being, I perceive this as a conversion- or a transition- from theism to atheism. For some reason I don't really believe that there is a god anymore. Anyway, is this merely a "phase", in which I will find theism again, or is atheism more of a permanent position? I am fairly new to the concept of atheism, so forgive me for any ignorance or naivety. I am just really confused.

My personal experience of atheism leaves space for it to be temporary - although it's been the status quo for a quarter of a century. I've read all kinds of book of - or about - religion. I've spent 25 years looking for truth - and I accept that maybe some day I'll find some transformative truth in a religion.

On the other way, I'm not unhappy with my lack of faith.

[Hallistar]

I appear to be going through a period of heavy religious doubt, since I partook in a thread about criminal systems. For some reason, I ended up contradicting myself, eventually reasoning that nothing exists, and then I just sort of lost it from there.

Point being, I perceive this as a conversion- or a transition- from theism to atheism. For some reason I don't really believe that there is a god anymore. Anyway, is this merely a "phase", in which I will find theism again, or is atheism more of a permanent position? I am fairly new to the concept of atheism, so forgive me for any ignorance or naivety. I am just really confused.

I never converted from believing in Santa Claus to not believing he exists..I just realized the guy didn't exist and went about my day as usual.

Don't worry about it too much.

[Putin the Bear King]

Here's my perspective. It is the perspective of a single Protestant. It is not normative. I speak for no church, and still less for God. But for what it's worth, I will offer it.

All right.

In the Epistle to the Ephesians

The Bible is not a source to prove God's existence by. In case you hadn't noticed, it's kind of biased.

the Apostle Paul writes that God "hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

In the same epistle, Paul writes that "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

This is what I like about biblical teachings: some of them actually promote good morals, such as don't be self-centered.

So faith, then, is not something that we do. It is not an action, or an achievement. We cannot possess it. Rather, it is something that we are given - something that was planned for us from the foundation of the world.

I thought you would do this. Again, the Bible is not a source. It is self-reinforcing and thus makes itself one large logical fallacy. Just because the Bible says that God gave us faith does not make it so, since we have yet to prove there is a God to give said faith.

So my first conclusion would be this: if you have lost your faith, then it is not your own fault. It is not through some lack of trying on your part. It is not a failure.

Here I agree with you. It is nobody's fault. Rather, it is the logical conclusion of anyone willing to wake up from the fairyland of religion.

If we believe, then it is by God's will. If we do not, then it is also by God's will.

Wouldn't he want everyone to believe in him if he existed?

As the psalmist says, "The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works." God does not make mistakes. If you do not believe, then you were meant not to believe, and it is good and holy that you do not.

Argument by assertion.

There is one other important point, related to this but distinct from it. The God in whom you no longer believe has not ceased to love you. You are, of course, a sinner - but so am I. None of us is perfect. But you are not damned. You are not condemned. You are cherished.

I am happy to see this, considering the fiery evangelism I have seen from others.

I know this because when Christ died on the cross, he did not offer up his life for those who loved him. He died for those who didn't. "While we were yet sinners," Paul says, "Christ died for us." Love, says John, lies not in the fact "that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." God loved us before we loved Him. He goes on loving us even when we hate Him.

Again, argument by assertion. And it just keeps going on...

Of course, if you are simply stating your opinion and don't intend to attempt to win back our newly athiest comrade, then I can understand your one-sided approach. Either way, your beliefs are your beliefs, and as long as you feel they make you happy then I hope you find peace in your faith.

Atheism is also argument by assertion, due to the philosophical assertion that an extra-dimensional creative force does not exist.

[Putin the Bear King]

Let me get this straight: you are crediting this life changing experience and period of spiritual crisis solely to a meaningless thread on a fringe forum for an online nation simulator game.

Let me get this straight: christianity is based solely on the many times rewritten and retranslated works of authors decades after an alleged event with absolutely no historical records, which was then cut in half and bulked back up a few hundred years later by committee, and people buy into it?

Let me get this straight: You don't know the careful work put in translating holy texts with innumerable historical citations, which was then added on only by later apostles with no removal of large chunks or cutting anything in half and unified by canonical meetings?

[Neutraligon]

All right.

The Bible is not a source to prove God's existence by. In case you hadn't noticed, it's kind of biased.

This is what I like about biblical teachings: some of them actually promote good morals, such as don't be self-centered.

I thought you would do this. Again, the Bible is not a source. It is self-reinforcing and thus makes itself one large logical fallacy. Just because the Bible says that God gave us faith does not make it so, since we have yet to prove there is a God to give said faith.

Here I agree with you. It is nobody's fault. Rather, it is the logical conclusion of anyone willing to wake up from the fairyland of religion.

Wouldn't he want everyone to believe in him if he existed?

Argument by assertion.

I am happy to see this, considering the fiery evangelism I have seen from others.

Again, argument by assertion. And it just keeps going on...

Of course, if you are simply stating your opinion and don't intend to attempt to win back our newly athiest comrade, then I can understand your one-sided approach. Either way, your beliefs are your beliefs, and as long as you feel they make you happy then I hope you find peace in your faith.

Atheism is also argument by assertion, due to the philosophical assertion that an extra-dimensional creative force does not exist.

Incorrect, atheism does not necessarily make a claim on the existence of god, rather it claims theists have yet to demonstrate that one does exist.

[Putin the Bear King]

Atheism is also argument by assertion, due to the philosophical assertion that an extra-dimensional creative force does not exist.

Incorrect, atheism does not necessarily make a claim on the existence of god, rather it claims theists have yet to demonstrate that one does exist.

The literal definition of atheism is not believing in a God. What are you on about?

[Neutraligon]

Incorrect, atheism does not necessarily make a claim on the existence of god, rather it claims theists have yet to demonstrate that one does exist.

The literal definition of atheism is not believing in a God. What are you on about?

No the literal definition is not theism, which does not mean someone has to actively disbelieve in a god.

AN atheist can be a person who actively says there is no god
An atheist can be a person who says there is not enough evidence for a god to claim there is one ( I fall under this category)
An atheist can be someone who has never heard of the god concept
An atheist can be (though people disagree) someone who is incapable of understanding the concept of a god.

TO put it simply as long as they cannot claim to be a theist, a person is an atheist.

[Vashtanaraada]

Why doubt or believe?
Why care at all?

Ladies and Gentlemen; I present Apatheism.

[Neutraligon]

Why doubt or believe?
Why care at all?

Ladies and Gentlemen; I present Apatheism.

Why care? Because people's beliefs affect their actions, and often the actions they take affect me.